Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: Apart from being homes to indigenous communities, the proposed area is well known as important wildlife habitats. It is also breeding grounds for African elephants.
Evidence B:Primary value is as migratory corridor, connectivity
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: The proposed area is largely grassland, not tropical forest. However, through ecosystem restoration and limiting human activities, it can moderately contribute to climate mitigation.
Evidence B:Low to moderate, but mostly under 50 t/ha
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance, but both IPLC rights and institutions face significant constrains. Significantly IPLC have vocalized incompatibility of Authorized Associations (AAs) with their traditional governance systems.
Evidence B:The Wildlife Management Areas are under IPLC control
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: This is vaguely stated in terms of how significant the land is for conservation, largely omitting the significance of the unique cultural significance of the proposed area to IPLCs.
Evidence B:Traditional practices are essential for the residents of the area
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: Technically, WMA in Tanzania are protected at two levels namely by the central government through Tanzania wildlife authority (TAWA) and by local communities on whose land a WMA is located. Their threats are therefore not critical.
Evidence B:Threats are generic in nature, and do not appear imminent
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: Tanzania’s legal and policy framework satisfactorily support the establishment and management of WMAs by IPLC. Disparities among ministries and the level of autonomy of communities remains areas to be worked on.
Evidence B:Clearly cites specific laws and policies in proposal
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: In line with the existing legal and policy framework, both the national and local governments recognize the importance of WMAs and supports them. The proposed are thus receive active government support.
Evidence B:National government clearly is engaged and supportive through Wildlife Management Areas
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: While there are many WMAs in the proposed area, only a few have demonstrable successes. This assessment is in terms a fully functional community governance system.
Evidence B:There are a number of well-established IPLC-led projects, including 8 Equator Prize winners.
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: The two projects are strongly complementary to the proposed project. For example, the one on local governance straightening through facilitation of village meetings.
Evidence B:There are numerous examples of complementary support included in the proposal.
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: The proposal has a strong bias on improving central governance structures and its accompanying legal and policy frameworks. However it is vaguely descriptive on how it can enhance IPLC’s effort through for example, inter-community exchange/study tours and or advocating for adoption of more friendly laws and policies.
Evidence B:The approach, focusing on Wildlife Management Areas for IPLCs, is well aligned
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: Activities are relevant, and the objectives attainable. What remains vague is the IPLC’s part of the equation. For example, the proposal is silent about their traditional institutions.
Evidence B:The activities are clearly articulated
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: Apart from indecencies described in no. 2 above, the proposed activities are realistically aligned to the identified problems. Once implemented, the problems identified will be significantly reduced.
Evidence B:The activities are clearly linked to the threats
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: Some activities proposed are time intensive, for example law reforms. However, other overall activities are achievable within the five years period.
Evidence B:The goals are reasonable within the budget and timeline.
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: Other financial sources stated in the EoI are significant and concrete. They are both financed by SIDA.
Evidence B:Significant sources are included in the proposal
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: While the EoI does not put in numbers/quantify all proposed environmental benefits, a recurring number is 75,000 Ha, which is very low.
Evidence B:The only listed reference is for 75,000 ha restored
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: The EOI is silent on the cultural and livelihood results’ contribution to the project. Instead, it refers to livelihood improvement and gender.
Evidence B:Clear indicators are included
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: The EOI envisions supporting indigenous conservation approaches as the end result or long term vision. However, this will still need future funding.
Evidence B:Clear vision, articulation of strategy for long-term sustainability
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: The EOI clearly states objectives of the NBSAP and how the proposed activities contained in the EOI will address them. This indicates mastery of national policies.
Evidence B:Very strong alignment to both documents
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: The approach contained in the EOI is weak, premised on a false assumption of equality of men and women. Significantly, it does not explain how the historical and culturally motivated gender-blind decision making approaches can be addressed.
Evidence B:Clear articulation across the strategy
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: Overall, the EOI is strongly bent on status quo maintenance (central governance regulation), and little about investing in IPLC themselves including envisioning semi-autonomous traditional institutions.
Evidence B:This project could help to solidify the governance frameworks for WMAs throughout the region
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: The EoI is led by a non-IPLC organization, with IPLC envisioned to be beneficiaries only. Accordingly, additional information is required on how it may scale-up IPLC leadership/semi-autonomy as stewards and not only as beneficiaries of the project.
Evidence B:It appears to only focus on beneficiaries
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: The lead proponent is a national level organization that works on the ground through Authorized Associations (AAs). Accordingly, it has limited demonstration of relevant on-the ground leadership.
Evidence B:Clear experience already demonstrated through large projects
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: No partners listed. This casts a shadow of doubt on the potential for boosting leadership capacities of IPLC.
Evidence B:Including on community-based natural resources
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: Skills are demonstrably relevant in conservation. However, gaps remain on the community liason. For example, it does not appear that any of the staff has worked with the IPLC mentioned in the EOI.
Evidence B:They lack only GEF experience
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: The organization is regularly audited and has an average annual budget of over $200,000. However, its sources are not diverse enough.
Evidence B:Broad experience with all three criteria
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: The answer is yes but no explanation is given on the link between the USAID project and GEF safeguards and other standards.
Evidence B:yes, well documented through USAID